[PATCH v4 3/9] dt-bindings: i2c: i2c-rk3x: Add rk3576 compatible

[Andi Shyti]

Hi Heiko,

On Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 11:59:12PM GMT, Heiko Stübner wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 3. September 2024, 18:47:17 CEST schrieb Andi Shyti:
> > On Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 11:59:34AM GMT, Detlev Casanova wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, 3 September 2024 11:46:00 EDT Andi Shyti wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > On Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 11:22:33AM GMT, Detlev Casanova wrote:
> > > > > Just like RK356x and RK3588, RK3576 is compatible to the existing
> > > > > rk3399 binding.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Detlev Casanova <detlev.casanova at collabora.com>
> > > > > Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski at linaro.org>
> > > > > Acked-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko at sntech.de>
> > > > 
> > > > I will apply this after 1 and 2 have been merged.
> > > 
> > > Sure, although it is not really dependent on 1 and 2.
> > 
> > yes, but I want to be sure that everything is coming in.
> > 
> > > > BTW, who is maintaining rockchip.yaml?
> > > 
> > > Heiko Stuebner is the maintainer of Rockchip SoC support.
> > 
> > I would guess so, but I think we should also add the entry to
> > the maintainer's file :-)
> 
> now you made me doubt the wildcards we have in place ;-)
> 
> # scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml
> [...]
> Heiko Stuebner <heiko at sntech.de> (maintainer:ARM/Rockchip SoC support)
> [...]
> linux-rockchip at lists.infradead.org (open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC support)
> 
> So Maintainers seems to be correct ... *phew* :-)

Normally I check the MAINTAINERS file where the rockchip.yaml is
not listed. There is an "N: rockchip" under your name, but having
it explicitely stated wouldn't hurt (as it is in other arm/*yaml
file. That's why I got confused at first.

Anyway, sorry for the noise.

Thanks,
Andi